arXiv.org help – Annoucement of new Economics (econ) archive

“An Economics section of the scientific repository arXiv is opening this month. arXiv is internationally acknowledged as a pioneering open access preprint repository. It has transformed the scholarly communication infrastructure of multiple fields of physics and plays an increasingly prominent role in mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, and statistics. arXiv is an essential component of scientific communication for many researchers worldwide in order to rapidly and widely disseminate their findings, establish priority of their discoveries, and seek feedback to help improve their work. It is hosted by the Cornell University Library with additional funding from 220 members libraries and several scientific foundations including the Simons Foundation.”

What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists | SpringerLink

Abstract:  This paper analyses the interrelationship between perceived journal reputation and its relevance for academics’ work. Based on a survey of 705 members of the German Economic Association (GEA), we find a strong interrelationship between perceived journal reputation and relevance where a journal’s perceived relevance has a stronger effect on its reputation than vice versa. Moreover, past journal ratings conducted by the Handelsblatt and the GEA directly affect journals’ reputation among German economists and indirectly also their perceived relevance, but the effect on reputation is more than twice as large as the effect on perceived relevance. In general, citations have a non-linear impact on perceived journal reputation and relevance. While the number of landmark articles published in a journal (as measured by the so-called H-index) increases the journal’s reputation, an increase in the H-index even tends to decrease a journal’s perceived relevance, as long as this is not simultaneously reflected in a higher Handelsblatt and/or GEA rating. This suggests that a journal’s relevance is driven by average article quality, while reputation depends more on truly exceptional articles. We also identify significant differences in the views on journal relevance and reputation between different age groups.

Impact of Social Sciences – Empirical analysis reveals significant discrepancy between journal reputation and perceived relevance in economics.

“Using survey data on the evaluations of 150 economics journals, a recent study explored the relationship between economics journals’ reputation and perceived relevance amongst economists working in the field. Justus Haucap shares some of the headline findings from the analysis based on the survey data. The findings suggest that a journal’s relevance is driven by average article quality, while reputation depends more on truly exceptional articles….”

CFA Institute launches Asia-Pacific research hub | Money Management

“CFA Institute has launched a new open-access hub by and for finance professionals looking for research on investment practices in Asia-Pacific.

Called the Asia-Pacific Research Exchange (ARX), the site would be open to global and regional investment professionals looking for Asia-Pacific finance and investment management trends or to learn more about the region’s financial markets….”

The Economics of Replication

Abstract:  Replication studies are considered a hallmark of good scientific practice. Yet they are treated among researchers as an ideal to be professed but not practiced. To provide incentives and favorable boundary conditions for replication practice, the main stakeholders need to be aware of what drives replication. Here we investigate how often replication studies are published in empirical economics and what types of journal articles are replicated. We find that from 1974 to 2014 less than 0.1% of publications in the top-50 economics journals were replications. We do not find empirical support that mandatory data disclosure policies or the availability of data or code have a significant effect on the incidence of replication. The mere provision of data repositories may be ineffective, unless accompanied by appropriate incentives. However, we find that higher-impact articles and articles by authors from leading institutions are more likely to be subject of published replication studies whereas the replication probability is lower for articles published in higher-ranked journals.

Free articles – accounting for the timing effect

Abstract: “Various studies have attempted to assess the amount of free full text available on the web and recent work have suggested that we are close to the 50% mark for freely available articles (Archambault et al. 2013; Björk et al. 2010; Jamali and Nabavi 2015). Our paper contributes to the literature by taking into account the timing issue by studying when the papers were made free. We sampled citations made by researchers who published in 2015 (based on records in the Singapore Management University Institution repository), checked the number of cited papers that were free at the time of the study and then attempted to “carbon date” the freely available papers to determine when they were first made available. This allows us to estimate the length of time the free cited article was made available before the citing paper was published. We find that in our sample of cited papers in Economics, the median freely available cited paper (oldest variant) was made available 7-8 years before the citing paper was published. Of these papers found free via Google Scholar, the majority 67% (n=47) was made available via University websites (not including Institutional repositories) and 32.8% (n=23) were final published versions.”

Moral economy and the political ontology of open access | Jana Bacevic and Chris Muellerleile – Academia.edu

Abstract:  Digital technologies have made access to and profit from scientific publications hotly contested issues. Despite disagreement on who and how should fund or have access to academic knowledge, there is a relatively stable “moral episteme” (Foucault, 1971) guiding the movement towards open access in the academia. We aim to clarify the ontological basis of the tension between its analytical and normative aspects. Focusing on what we call the four myths of open access –enclosure, the commons, free labour, and Enlightenment — we show how the underlying political ontology of open access frames knowledge as the ultimate good. We argue that these myths both (re)produce the political subjectivity of the actors and institutions involved in academic knowledge production, and constitute a mechanism of justification that aims to position knowledge outside of the sphere of the market. Our analysis of these myths shows how open access functions as the moral economy of the digital.

Moral economy and the political ontology of open access | Jana Bacevic and Chris Muellerleile – Academia.edu

Abstract:  Digital technologies have made access to and profit from scientific publications hotly contested issues. Despite disagreement on who and how should fund or have access to academic knowledge, there is a relatively stable “moral episteme” (Foucault, 1971) guiding the movement towards open access in the academia. We aim to clarify the ontological basis of the tension between its analytical and normative aspects. Focusing on what we call the four myths of open access –enclosure, the commons, free labour, and Enlightenment — we show how the underlying political ontology of open access frames knowledge as the ultimate good. We argue that these myths both (re)produce the political subjectivity of the actors and institutions involved in academic knowledge production, and constitute a mechanism of justification that aims to position knowledge outside of the sphere of the market. Our analysis of these myths shows how open access functions as the moral economy of the digital.

The Open Innovation Research Landscape: Established Perspectives and Emerging Themes across Different Levels of Analysis by Marcel Bogers, Ann-Kristin Zobel, Allan Afuah, Esteve Almirall, Sabine Brunswicker, Linus Dahlander, Lars Frederiksen, Annabelle Gawer, Marc Gruber, Stefan Haefliger, John Hagedoorn, Dennis Hilgers, Keld Laursen, Mats Magnusson, Ann Majchrzak, Ian P. McCarthy, Kathrin M. Moeslein, Satish Nambisan, Frank T. Piller, Agnieszka Radziwon, Cristina Rossi Lamastra, Jonathan Sims,

Abstract: “This paper provides an overview of the main perspectives and themes emerging in research on open innovation. The paper is the result of a collaborative process among several open innovation scholars — having a common basis in the recurrent Professional Development Workshop (PDW) on “Researching Open Innovation” at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. In this paper, we present opportunities for future research on open innovation, organized at different levels of analysis. We discuss some of the contingencies at these different levels, and argue that future research needs to study open innovation — originally an organizational-level phenomenon — across multiple levels of analysis. While our integrative framework allows comparing, contrasting, and integrating different perspectives at different levels of analysis, further theorizing will be needed to advance open innovation research. On this basis, we propose some new research categories as well as questions for future research — particularly those that span across research domains that have so far developed in isolation.”